My complaint is about the people who think that the U.S. is nothing but a nation of goofy, lawless, gunpacking paranoid idiots-most of those people live here!

I am sorry if you thought I was ragging on you. I was merely defending my country from the folks that live here and find it such a ghastly place to live in.

Oh gosh, no, that was never my intention! I'm a firm believer in not tarring everything with the same brush. Personally, I love the way things are run in America, in general. Every branch of politics is far from perfect, British politics being very, very far indeed. I suppose we are just a more tightly-run country and we let too much compassion override our politics (the release of the Libyan Lockerbie criminal a prime example), so the idea of people walking around with guns just does not seem right to me.

I stick by that idea; that guns should be kept out of the hands of everyday people; but it's not my country and I accept that. I merely like to be involved in threads like these for my education on such issues.

Originally Posted by blue

I would think it wont take to much to ban the carrying of knives or the licensing of martial arts training for self defense in the UK.

I found this comment interesting as the answer is you're right, at least as far as knives go; it is an offense to carry such blades around with you, other than pocket knives. You cannot buy a knife, razor, axe, etc, until you are 18. However, this law doesn't seem to be being enforced enough, as young, stupid people are still getting hold of them and are roaming around, unchecked, in public.

We're having a tough time with knife-crime in the London area. I support 100% the stricter legislations on knife carrying that are being brought up in Parliamentary debate. Too many lives are wasted by idiots getting hammered out of their heads and stabbing to death the next person they meet in the street.

What is more dangerous than a loaded assault weapon?

A t-shirt of course!

President Bush's speech at the state capitol in Charleston, W.Va., on Independence Day in 2004, invoked the nation's highest ideals: "On this Fourth of July, we confirm our love of freedom, the freedom for people to speak their minds. ... Free thought, free expression, that's what we believe," Bush told the crowd.

Ringing words. Unfortunately, the White House advance team didn't get the memo. Or the message.

More than an hour earlier, the advance officials, working with local police, had confronted and ejected a young couple who had come to the speech wearing T-shirts that fit any reasonable definition of free expression. The front of both shirts bore the name "Bush" surrounded by a circle with a slash through it; the back of Jeffery Rank's shirt carried the slogan "Regime Change Begins at Home" and Nicole Rank's shirt read, "Love America, Hate Bush."

The Ranks refused demands to take the shirts off, turn them inside out or leave. Though they were on public property and not being disruptive, they were handcuffed, arrested and charged with trespass. The charges were later dropped, and with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Ranks sued the White House advance personnel for violating their First Amendment rights.

Last week, the government settled the case, admitting no wrongdoing but agreeing to pay the Ranks $80,000. That avoidable expenditure of taxpayer dollars speaks volumes about who was wrong here.

Oh gosh, no, that was never my intention! I'm a firm believer in not tarring everything with the same brush. Personally, I love the way things are run in America, in general. Every branch of politics is far from perfect, British politics being very, very far indeed. I suppose we are just a more tightly-run country and we let too much compassion override our politics (the release of the Libyan Lockerbie criminal a prime example), so the idea of people walking around with guns just does not seem right to me.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I have a question please.

May I ask you a question about English Laws & customs . I read a column
on BBC about three people who had been sentenced for the death of a
child. The Police seemed to be saying that they need protect these criminals after
they served their sentences , and they will receive police protection. Is that normal
for England? They sure wouldn't earn any protection from society after
they were out of prison.

Oh gosh, no, that was never my intention! I'm a firm believer in not tarring everything with the same brush. Personally, I love the way things are run in America, in general. Every branch of politics is far from perfect, British politics being very, very far indeed. I suppose we are just a more tightly-run country and we let too much compassion override our politics (the release of the Libyan Lockerbie criminal a prime example), so the idea of people walking around with guns just does not seem right to me.

I stick by that idea; that guns should be kept out of the hands of everyday people; but it's not my country and I accept that. I merely like to be involved in threads like these for my education on such issues.

The UK has alot more controll over its citizens then the USA .gov has. I wont ever go the Las Vegas because it has more cameras then London, I would be willing to go to London however. The UK used to be a very firearm oriented place, its been legeslated out to the point where ordinary citizens are fearfull of even seeing a cop with a firearm, my opinion on the subject.

Originally Posted by Miss Z

I found this comment interesting as the answer is you're right, at least as far as knives go; it is an offense to carry such blades around with you, other than pocket knives. You cannot buy a knife, razor, axe, etc, until you are 18. However, this law doesn't seem to be being enforced enough, as young, stupid people are still getting hold of them and are roaming around, unchecked, in public.

We're having a tough time with knife-crime in the London area. I support 100% the stricter legislations on knife carrying that are being brought up in Parliamentary debate. Too many lives are wasted by idiots getting hammered out of their heads and stabbing to death the next person they meet in the street.

Crime goes up when the means to defend yourself are taken away. The criminals dont care what weapons they cant legally have, making law abiding citizens victims.

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

Speaking of people you might not want to live next door to...

From yesterday's Orange County Register...

An Anaheim woman shot her longtime neighbor in his shoulder after he politely asked her to stop trimming ivy from his side of a shared fence.

Anita Judith Spriggs, 66, then stuffed her gun in an oven mitt, cut a hole in the drywall of a bedroom and tried to hide the package as police surrounded her house....

She is charged with attempted murder and assault with a semiautomatic firearm.

Ild say she had a mental issue, Ild love to see how she bought the firearm in the first place. If she has a previous history somebody is going to share a cell along side her.

Late in 2004 a man shot and killed Darrell Abbott of Pantera and Damage Plan by a man whoes mom bought him a firearm, it was illegal for her son to own a firearm for mental reasons. To my knowledge the mother was never charged with a crime she admitted to.

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

A t-shirt of course!

President Bush's speech at the state capitol in Charleston, W.Va., on Independence Day in 2004, invoked the nation's highest ideals: "On this Fourth of July, we confirm our love of freedom, the freedom for people to speak their minds. ... Free thought, free expression, that's what we believe," Bush told the crowd.

Ringing words. Unfortunately, the White House advance team didn't get the memo. Or the message.

More than an hour earlier, the advance officials, working with local police, had confronted and ejected a young couple who had come to the speech wearing T-shirts that fit any reasonable definition of free expression. The front of both shirts bore the name "Bush" surrounded by a circle with a slash through it; the back of Jeffery Rank's shirt carried the slogan "Regime Change Begins at Home" and Nicole Rank's shirt read, "Love America, Hate Bush."

The Ranks refused demands to take the shirts off, turn them inside out or leave. Though they were on public property and not being disruptive, they were handcuffed, arrested and charged with trespass. The charges were later dropped, and with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Ranks sued the White House advance personnel for violating their First Amendment rights.

Last week, the government settled the case, admitting no wrongdoing but agreeing to pay the Ranks $80,000. That avoidable expenditure of taxpayer dollars speaks volumes about who was wrong here.

May I ask you a question about English Laws & customs . I read a column
on BBC about three people who had been sentenced for the death of a
child. The Police seemed to be saying that they need protect these criminals after
they served their sentences , and they will receive police protection. Is that normal
for England? They sure wouldn't earn any protection from society after
they were out of prison.

Ah yes, the baby 'P' case. A very sad story indeed, and one that our social services has received a lot of criticism over.

That is correct, once released from prison these people do have a right to call for police protection (although as far as I'm aware, it is for a limited period of time only. Quite how long that is, I don't know. It varies from case to case). This happens often in cases of a sensitive nature, particularly those involving children.

The 'idea' is that the criminals have served their punishment in prison, and that upon their release they are likely to be subject to further abuse and discrimination from the public, job interviewers, etc. In order for the people in question to continue with their lives without the risk of assualt, or worse, the police protection is there to ensure that.

I must say that in the majority of cases like this, those convicted are kept anonymous, thus police protection is not usually needed. However, for some reason or another, the anonymity request expired.

It's an issue that divides our nation, just as ES explained that gun laws divide America. Many people feel very, very strongly that ex-cons should pay the full penalty for the crime they committed, and should 'get what they deserve'. Others question whether that sort of attitude breaches human rights and that, if someone was wrongly convicted, which does happen occasionally, they would be subject to undeserved hatred and hardship for the rest of their lives.

It's another issue of perhaps considering compassion a little too much in politics.

Originally Posted by blue

Crime goes up when the means to defend yourself are taken away. The criminals dont care what weapons they cant legally have, making law abiding citizens victims.

I think in the UK it's more to do with a lack of fear of being caught and reprimanded. We have far less on-the-beat bobbies than we used to so this sort of crime is much easier to get away with. Also, we keep letting all our petty to moderate criminals out early on 'good behaviour' because we don't have enough prison space to cram them all in. I don't think it's got much to do with self defence, except in Manchester/London gang culture, which do not count for all stabbings.